Monday, August 25, 2014

David Klinghoffer recognizes the problems with authorities and quote mining

We all know the drill by now. Intelligent design Creationists attempt to discredit evolution and science by pointing out what they see as flaws in basic theory. They also spend a considerable amount of time attempting to discredit individual scientists using guilt by association or direct character assaults.

One of their favorite tricks is to lift quotations out of context and present them in a way that makes it look like famous scientists are supporting Intelligent Design Creationism—or, at least, supporting the idea that evolution is flawed.

The tactic is so widespread and despicable that it led to formation of The Quote Mine Project
Or, Lies, Damned Lies and Quote Mines. That project ran out of steam about eight years ago because the authors just couldn't keep up with all the misinformation coming out of books, lectures, and articles from leading members of the Discovery Institute.

Stephen Meyer is a expert at this. Here are a couple of examples from his book Darwin's Doubt (2013).

Because despite the widespread impression to the contrary—conveyed by textbooks, the popular media, and spokespersons for official science—the orthodox neo-Darwinian theory of biological evolution has reached an impasse nearly as acute as the one faced by chemical evolutionary theory. Leading figures in several subdisciplines of biology—cell biology, developmental biology, molecular biology, paleontology, and even evolutionary biology—now openly criticze key tenets of the modern version of Darwinian theory in the peer-reviewed technical literature. Sinec 1980, when Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould declared that neo-Darwinism "is effectively dead, despite its persistence as textbook orthodoxy," the weight of ctirical opinion in biology has grown steadily with each passing year. (p. ix)

See how it works? Meyer is pretending to be an "insider" on the subject of evolutionary theory. He's familiar with the views of the "leading figures" and he's revealing to his readers the fact that evolution is in trouble even though scientists are trying to cover it up.

He quotes a 34 year old article by Gould to back up his case. Gould wasn't talking about the modern version of evolutionary theory—the one that incorporates Neutral Theory and population genetics. He was talking about the hardened version of synthetic theory ("Modern Synthesis") as described by Ernst Mayr back in the 1960s. In his 1980 article Gould said, "... if Mayr's characterization of synthetic theory is accurate, then that theory, as a general proposition, is effectively dead ...."

Lots has been written about this quote, including a lengthy discussion in Gould's last book, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory [Is the "Modern Synthesis" effectively dead?]. Stephen Meyer should be aware of the context and meaning but that doesn't stop him from quote mining to misrepresent the views of 21st century evolutionary biologists.

Here's another example from the same book. It comes from Chapter 6 where Meyer is attempting to discredit the molecular evidence showing that the Cambrian organisms have a history that extends back into the Precambrian.

Just as the molecular data do not point unequivocally to a single date for the last common ancestor of all the Cambrian animals (the point of deep divergence), they do not point unequivocally to a single coherent tree depicting the evolution of animals in the Precambrian. Numerous papers have noted the prevalence of contradictory trees based on evidence from molecular genetics. A 2009 paper in Trends in Ecology and Evolution notes that "evolutionary trees from different genes often have conflicting branching patterns." Likewise, a 2012 paper in Biological Reviews notes that "phylogenetic conflict is common, and frequently the norm rather than the exception." Echoing these views, a January 2009 cover story and review article in New Scientist observed that today the tree-of-life project "lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence." As the article explains, "Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded," because the evidence suggests that "the evolution of animals and plants isn't exactly tree-like."

None of those papers, articles, and quotes have anything to do with whether molecular data refute the claim that Cambrian animals sprang into existence in a geological instant [see Darwin Was Wrong?] [Stephen Meyer's Errors]. But Meyer makes it look like he's on top of the scientific literature and it shows that molecular phylogenies cannot be trusted.

It seems clear to me that this tactic is an act of desperation. It's not simply an attempt to improperly discredit some piece of evidence used by their opponents without having to produce any actual counterevidence or argument. Even more than this, it's a psychological tactic intended to manipulate the audience, painting themselves as being within the real scientific community, and therefore "in-the-know," while their debate opponent, ... is outside the real scientific community, guilty of the worst of all possible crimes: not being one of the cool kids.

That's exactly right and Ryan deserves credit for recognizing the fallacy.

David Klinghoffer, to his credit as well, reinforces the point and says that such tactics are childish.1

On the other hand, let's cut these guys some slack. Invoking buddies in the audience, on a screen, or by quoting (and misreprsenting) their email correspondence is a cheap trick to pull, cashing in social status in a way that's straight out of junior high school.

1. I'm well aware of the fact that I'm quote mining. Ryan and David Klinghoffer don't really criticize Intelligent Design Creationists, their attack is aimed at scientists. Their attack is ironical, Mine is cynical, skeptical, and deliberate.

Gould, S.J. (1980) Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging? Paleobiology 6:119-130. [PDF]

28 comments
:

Speaking of pretending to be an insider, the 1st sentence of Chapter 3 of Darwin's Doubt is "In the spring of 2000, the Discovery Institute, where I do my research, sponsored a lecture at they University of Washington geology department by the renowned Chinese paleontologist J. Y. Chen (see Fig 3.1)." (Boldface added.) Fig. 3.1 is a photo of Chen.Gee, Meyer does research, and he even has a photo of a renowned paleontologist who has come all the way from China. Who knew?

Yes, it's one of the chief obstacles advocates of science have in arguing with creationists. Almost all creationists are as droolingly stupid as Steve here, such that they are unable to comprehend a simple argument stated in plain English. So it's a considerable challenge to word one's argument in such a way that they can actually follow it.

Argumentation, heck - I'd just settle for coherence. Did you and Gary Gaulin attend the same English composition classes? Natural selection, maintenance junkies, inflatable rafts - this is supposed to make sense?

By a god, no doubt, that goes around poking into organism's genomes and puffing mutations into existence by magic as required on a case by case basis. Makes sense, Steve. No doubt ID will be the great scientific revolution of the 21th century.

This is the first correct thing Steve has said regarding the Discovery Institute. Yes, they are all liars - all of them. It's not an epithet, though, it's their job description. The Disco Tute is a propaganda organization focused on social change. They try to achieve their goals by creating doubt about science and they do that by lying about science. It's not rocket science, although they lie about rocket science, too.

Professor Moran is admirable in not dismissing the IDiots at face value but taking the time to expose their prevarications. For example, to simply point out that Behe is wrong misses the more accurate characterization of Behe being deliberately misleading. Behe starts with his conclusion, the Intelligent Designer, then tries to find the tiniest cherry to pick that may, if one squints, support is preconceived conclusion. However, in doing so Moran and others provide a valuable science education moment for the rest of us.

Since we talked about anthropocentric bias in the other thread and the subject of the Cambrian explosion came up here too, it occurred to me that creationists love the Cambrian explosion and talking about animals but nobody ever mentions plants and fungi. Why is that? Can some of the creationists who visit this blog enlighten me on the subject? Those lineages also evolved multicellularity and a few others did too. If the "sudden" appearance of animals (which is a false claim, but let's ignore that for a second) is evidence of design, what is the fossil record of algae and land plants evidence for?

Why is nobody commenting on their fossil record? Is it because that one is much more gradual, because the earliest multicellular algae appear in the fossil record hundreds of millions of years before the Cambrian, or simply because nobody pays any attention to anything other than metazoans?

One of the more amusing (or infuriating) examples of a quote mine from Meyer's book was described on the Panda's Thumb. Meyer spliced together two phrases by Charles R. Marshall that in the original document were separated by fifteen pages:

i should say I don't understand why evolutionists accuse creationists etc of quote mining!yet it fits a bigger equation. evolutionism is so much making its case on the credibility of the small numbers of researchers that to allow even a few musings of criticism about points of evolution UNDERMINES the whole credibility of the theory.Creationists use quotes fair and square and no more in error then anyone who uses quotes.its demonstrating its about AUTHORITY and not the merits that substains evolutionary biology in its claim to be a scientific theory or tested hypothesis.Nobody does or accuses folks in any other science subject of quote mining. It never comes up.this could only be because evolution etc are subjects not proven by the evidence but evolution is proven by the degree ed authorizes claims its proven by the evidence.

Nobody does or accuses folks in any other science subject of quote mining. It never comes up.

That's because scientists do their own research, they don't have to twist the results of others. But you are wrong, there is an equivalent of quote mining in other fields. It is done by "paradoxers" who, for example, try to show that physics is self-contradictory. A favorite trick is to show that equation 10.69 in a standard textbook contradicts equation 5.38. And they are right, because 10.69 is a simplification of 5.38 which holds only in certain cases, so yes you can find circumstances in which 10.69 is invalid. This behavior is just as wrong and dishonest as quote mining but requires a far higher level of technical expertise. That is why there are far more quote miners than paradoxers.

Hey Bobby B, we godless evilutionists can play the quote-mine game too:

"I believe God has called AiG to ... override the Supreme Court's decision in the Hobby Lobby case and compel for-profit employers to cover the full range of contraception for their employees, as required by the Affordable Care Act.”

YEC or ID creationists do not dishonestly use quotes wrong.if, i say , IF they get a quote out of context, or misunderstood it, or miss saw words then its honest error.Saying creationists strive to get quotes wrong is losing credibility for the accuser.Its all dumb and besides the point of a science contention.By the way I find evolutionist do correct or say this or that evolutionist is wrong or a old idea is wrong because they want to accomplish something new in the subject.As I said much ado about nothing.

I'm one of the contributors to the The Quote Mine Project mentioned by Professor Moran in his post. I would be very interested if you can point to a quote that's been unfairly "dissected" in The Quote Mine Project. Far from such quotes being used "fair and square", they reveal either a staggering lack of honesty, or a mind-numbing level of incompetence. My experience with creationists makes me lean towards the former.

Augaryits a bother to investigate accusations like these.my experience is that id or YEC nEVER use quotes except they believe the quote is aexcellent point and obviously there to be checked by anyone.

If errors are made its no more then usual then any people using ones opponents quotes.Putting a light on creationist quotes is missing the equation of human incompetence. We could do the same but its not the same.These quotes are relevant to researchers own questioning of evolution.Nobody seeks out ones opponents use of quotes in our world.It would only be done if the side complaining believes their case is based on authority and not the facts proven.Its all like using ones spouse quotes against them.there might be error or not on both sides but its not relevant to the bigger issues.Trying to say, as you admit by your claim of dishonesty on Creationists, that creationists strive to deceive people is just silly.Creationists , better then most, have no such diabolical agenda.

By the way. These are complicated matters. Easily people can misunderstand ones points. In complicated things context and words easily can give a wrong impression .I always have to watch carefully my words because the creationist is easily banned from internet forums. By other creationists. I'm pretty good and still get falsely attacked.

I’m puzzled. You write that quotes are "obviously there to be checked by anyone", but then state that "Nobody seeks out ones opponents use of quotes in our world." So, is it permissible to check quotes, or not? Or is it only permissible to check quotes, but not tell anyone else about your findings? Or is it that no one in your world is concerned about accuracy?

You also wrote that "These quotes are relevant to researchers own questioning of evolution." In reality, most of these researchers don’t question evolution, but their words have been changed so it appears that they do. I would think that you would be happy that their true views have been revealed.

Finally, you also seem to be of the opinion that erroneous quotations are not a result of bad intentions, but mere incompetence. But shouldn’t such incompetence be revealed? Or is that not a concern in your world? In my neck of the woods, competence is very important.

Laurence A. Moran

Larry Moran is a Professor in the Department of Biochemistry at the University of Toronto. You can contact him by looking up his email address on the University of Toronto website.

Sandwalk

The Sandwalk is the path behind the home of Charles Darwin where he used to walk every day, thinking about science. You can see the path in the woods in the upper left-hand corner of this image.

Disclaimer

Some readers of this blog may be under the impression that my personal opinions represent the official position of Canada, the Province of Ontario, the City of Toronto, the University of Toronto, the Faculty of Medicine, or the Department of Biochemistry. All of these institutions, plus every single one of my colleagues, students, friends, and relatives, want you to know that I do not speak for them. You should also know that they don't speak for me.

Subscribe to Sandwalk

Quotations

The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me to be so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows.Charles Darwin (c1880)Although I am fully convinced of the truth of the views given in this volume, I by no means expect to convince experienced naturalists whose minds are stocked with a multitude of facts all viewed, during a long course of years, from a point of view directly opposite to mine. It is so easy to hide our ignorance under such expressions as "plan of creation," "unity of design," etc., and to think that we give an explanation when we only restate a fact. Any one whose disposition leads him to attach more weight to unexplained difficulties than to the explanation of a certain number of facts will certainly reject the theory.

Charles Darwin (1859)Science reveals where religion conceals. Where religion purports to explain, it actually resorts to tautology. To assert that "God did it" is no more than an admission of ignorance dressed deceitfully as an explanation...

Quotations

The world is not inhabited exclusively by fools, and when a subject arouses intense interest, as this one has, something other than semantics is usually at stake.
Stephen Jay Gould (1982)
I have championed contingency, and will continue to do so, because its large realm and legitimate claims have been so poorly attended by evolutionary scientists who cannot discern the beat of this different drummer while their brains and ears remain tuned to only the sounds of general theory.
Stephen Jay Gould (2002) p.1339
The essence of Darwinism lies in its claim that natural selection creates the fit. Variation is ubiquitous and random in direction. It supplies raw material only. Natural selection directs the course of evolutionary change.
Stephen Jay Gould (1977)
Rudyard Kipling asked how the leopard got its spots, the rhino its wrinkled skin. He called his answers "just-so stories." When evolutionists try to explain form and behavior, they also tell just-so stories—and the agent is natural selection. Virtuosity in invention replaces testability as the criterion for acceptance.
Stephen Jay Gould (1980)
Since 'change of gene frequencies in populations' is the 'official' definition of evolution, randomness has transgressed Darwin's border and asserted itself as an agent of evolutionary change.
Stephen Jay Gould (1983) p.335
The first commandment for all versions of NOMA might be summarized by stating: "Thou shalt not mix the magisteria by claiming that God directly ordains important events in the history of nature by special interference knowable only through revelation and not accessible to science." In common parlance, we refer to such special interference as "miracle"—operationally defined as a unique and temporary suspension of natural law to reorder the facts of nature by divine fiat.
Stephen Jay Gould (1999) p.84

Quotations

My own view is that conclusions about the evolution of human behavior should be based on research at least as rigorous as that used in studying nonhuman animals. And if you read the animal behavior journals, you'll see that this requirement sets the bar pretty high, so that many assertions about evolutionary psychology sink without a trace.

Jerry Coyne
Why Evolution Is TrueI once made the remark that two things disappeared in 1990: one was communism, the other was biochemistry and that only one of them should be allowed to come back.

Sydney Brenner
TIBS Dec. 2000
It is naïve to think that if a species' environment changes the species must adapt or else become extinct.... Just as a changed environment need not set in motion selection for new adaptations, new adaptations may evolve in an unchanging environment if new mutations arise that are superior to any pre-existing variations

Douglas Futuyma
One of the most frightening things in the Western world, and in this country in particular, is the number of people who believe in things that are scientifically false. If someone tells me that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, in my opinion he should see a psychiatrist.

Francis Crick
There will be no difficulty in computers being adapted to biology. There will be luddites. But they will be buried.

Sydney Brenner
An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: 'I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one.' I can't help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist

Richard Dawkins
Another curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understand it. I mean philosophers, social scientists, and so on. While in fact very few people understand it, actually as it stands, even as it stood when Darwin expressed it, and even less as we now may be able to understand it in biology.

Jacques Monod
The false view of evolution as a process of global optimizing has been applied literally by engineers who, taken in by a mistaken metaphor, have attempted to find globally optimal solutions to design problems by writing programs that model evolution by natural selection.